United States District Court, S.D. California
ANDREW CONTASTI, an individual; ANNETTE CONTASTI, an individual; and JOE HERNANDEZ, an individual, Plaintiffs,
CITY OF SOLANA BEACH, Defendant.
WILLIAM Q. HAYES, District Judge.
The matter before the Court is the Motion for Attorney's Fees filed by Defendant City of Solana Beach. (ECF No. 149).
On January 28, 2010, Plaintiffs Andrew Contasti, Annette Contasti, and Joe Hernandez ("Plaintiffs") filed the First Amended Complaint ("Complaint"), alleging two claims for relief against Defendant based upon the decision of the City Council to deny Plaintiffs' application for a development review permit for Lot 10 located at 360 North Granados Avenue in the City of Solana Beach. (ECF No. 15).
On April 29, 2011, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication of Issues ("Motion for Summary Judgment"). (ECF No. 32). On July 26, 2011, the Court issued an Order granting the Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication of Issues. (ECF No. 36).
On July 27, 2011, the Clerk of the Court issued a Judgment against Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 37).
On January 24, 2012, Plaintiff Andrew Contasti filed a Motion for Relief from Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). (ECF No. 45).
On July 9, 2012, the Court issued an Order granting the Motion for Relief from Judgment finding that Plaintiffs had demonstrated excusable neglect and extraordinary circumstances sufficient to warrant relief. (ECF No. 61).
On August 6, 2012, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 69). On September 18, 2012, the Court denied Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety, finding that "there [was] a triable issue of fact to whether the Defendant's alleged justification for denying Plaintiffs' application was based on improper motive' and served as a pretext for differential treatment.'" (ECF No. 71 at 16).
On May 24, 2013, the Court issued an Order denying Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Second Summary Judgment Motion. (ECF No. 96).
The parties subsequently filed motions in limine and on September 6, 2013, the Court held a hearing on the motions in limine. (ECF No. 139). On October 22, 2013, the Court issued an order granting Defendant's motion in limine to preclude evidence, testimony, or argument in relation to violation of substantive due process. (ECF No. 141). The Court found that "the undisputed facts and applicable law establish[ed] that Plaintiffs [did not] establish a protected property interest required in order to prevail on the claim for deprivation of substantive due process." Id. at 15. Both parties subsequently filed supplemental briefings. (ECF Nos. 142 and 143).
On January 6, 2014, the Court issued an order granting Defendant's motion in limine to preclude any evidence, testimony, or argument relating to violations of right to equal protection and procedural due process. (ECF No. 145). The Court denied all pending motions as moot. The Court entered judgment for Defendant on both claims and closed the case.
On January 16, 2014, Defendant filed a Motion for Attorney's Fees. (ECF No. 149). Defendant moves for an award of $109, 101.25 in attorney's fees, $3, 906.01 in costs, and $4, 656.53 in additional recoverable costs, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendant contends Plaintiffs pursued "frivolous claims... and raised numerous unsupported legal theories and factual contentions." Id. at 1. Defendant contends:
Similar to Saman v. Robbins, 173 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 1999) (attorney's fees awarded to a defendant who prevailed over a claim lacking factual support), and Fellowship v. Baptist Church, et al. v. Benton, et al., 815 F.2d 485 (8th Cir. 1986) (attorney's fees awarded to a defendant who prevailed over claim that presented issues rejected in numerous courts)... ...